Yesterday, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was supposed to unveil a visionary new statewide transportation plan. And while the spending component includes a commuter rail expansion and a pedestrian and bike program, the funding component bears some resemblance to what we recently held up as a worst-case scenario.

Patrick’s proposal doesn’t contain a vehicle miles traveled fee, which was endorsed by a state-appointed panel. Nor does it contain the tax on parking facilities that intrigued Governing Magazine. Instead, like Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s recent transportation funding proposal, the package doesn’t ask motorists to contribute anything. While he won’t be taking the extreme step of eliminating the state’s gas tax, as McDonnell wants to do, Patrick is going to pay for the state’s transportation needs by adding a new tax on productive work instead of driving.

But just two days after outlining a menu of funding options, the Patrick administration proposed only raising income taxes to pay for repairs and improvements around the state. No doubt, income taxes are a powerful financing source. And it’s a progressive tax which means those earning the most contribute the most.

In focusing on income taxes, though, Patrick fails to take advantage of incentives for non-auto travel. Charging people who drive more – through tolls, gasoline taxes, VMT taxes, and green taxes – transfers the costs to those who use the infrastructure. It also encourages drivers to consider other ways to get around. And the more people walking, biking, and riding transit, the less taxpayers have to pay to maintain our expensive highway system. Let alone the benefits to public health, transportation safety, and quality of life.

If Massachusetts can’t put together a smart transportation funding proposal, it’s hard to be optimistic other states will.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Los Alamos Bikes shares the news that the city of Santa Fe has started a “war against jaywalking pedestrians,” despite the sparsity of crosswalks in the city. New Jersey Future says that as the state gets ready to realign development incentives, it needs to prioritize transit-accessible locations. And, in light of the New York City school bus driver strike, Second Avenue Sagas discusses the merits of using the public transit system as transportation for students.

Massachusetts has two problems before which Patrick is yielding: in Western Massachusetts, the population feels neglected by Boston, even though they get way more Commonwealth spending than they pay in taxes. And in Boston, we have our own counterpart to the NYPost, in the form of the Herald, riling up the same crowd with the moronic points.

And, we just spent billions to make it easier for morons to drive to NH to dodge the sales and gasoline tax. So it’s easier to just raise the income tax, and hope that our small contingent of wealthy old Yankees will respond the way they always do: by doing nothing.

Anonymous

Well, in light of the #@$!show of criticism he was subjected to when he suggested raising the gas tax in 2009, it’s not that surprising.

I’m glad the VMT didn’t come up, because it’s the wrong framework for progressives and it’s a red herring anyway.

Larry Littlefield

Don’t worry. The financial problems and deferred maintenance are so bad they’ll end up increasing the income tax, then still being in the hole and facing increases in tolls and gas taxes too.

What’s the difference between the Mass income tax and NY’s MTA payroll tax? If they earn enough, those who get investment and retirement income pay it too.

(In NY public retired employees wouldn’t pay in either case, because their retirement income is exempt from state and local taxes).

http://twitter.com/ocschwar ocschwar

It is worth nothing, however, that MA did also announce the end of all new highways. No more widenings. We. Are. Done. So by using income taxes for non-highway projects, the governor is sidestepping right wing talking points about gas tax diversions.

Nathanael

The construction of passenger rail improvements in western Mass may help change the attitude out there. Along with No More Highways.

Anonymous

I’m sorry, but I don’t simply agree with parking lot or per-mile taxes on drivers as the correct funding model for transit. This isn’t a question of “fairness,” (I get it: car drivers get funded disproportionally–on a gut level, as a non-car driver, I don’t like that), but it’s really a question of clear, dedicated, and correctly-aligned funding sources. Tying funding to parking lots and driving means the more people drive and park, the more money transit gets. That’s an inverse feedback cycle. If transit does its job better, it gets *less* money.

The Transport politic discussed this in 2009 when looking at Paris v New York, and why Paris has so much more money (they’re building 124 miles of new rail lines in the city currently.)

Paris’ model has transit funding sources tied to an income tax based on your transit access. If the transit system does a better job of serving you, you pay a higher rate.

This creates a positive feedback cycle where the better people are served by transit, the more money the transit agency gets.

Anonymous

I’m with ocschwar and northendmatt. Patrick tried to raise the gas tax in 09, had a long series of trial balloons shot down for doing the same in this go-round, and wants to spend the money in all the right places. Most states would be over the moon to have this kind of dedication to transit, bike, ped, and no more highways. Give some credit where it’s due.

Follow Streetsblog

Transportation for America

America's transportation system is half a century behind--causing unnecessary pollution, expense, and congestion. We need our leaders to invest in public transportation, high-speed passenger rail, streets safe for biking and walking, maintaining our roads and transit systems, and green innovation.